Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

[Kryx]

Wild Shape is way more effective on defining a class than Resilient Husk + Power Surge or Eldritch Secrets + Grimoire is. So, yeah, I am starting to really think the Sorcerer needs more to define its fantasy.

Sorcerer
I'm not seeing how Resilient Husk and Power Surge are not defining enough.

Resilient Husk, from a flavor perspective, is that a Sorcerer is a significantly tougher person due to their infusion of the magical energies in them. I envision a Sorcerer discovering their powers as a coming of age story where they figure things out as they go along. I don't see that aligning with a spell like Mage Armor in most cases. From a mechanical perspective it covers defenses and saves on 1 mana per day (though perhaps mage armor should rever to 8 hour duration so the cost is 1 mana per rest). This doesn't scale as the Sorcerer levels, but Power Surge does.

Power Surge is a very defining feature imo. It identifies the Sorcerer as a class that can empower their spells from their magical energies. From a mechanical point of view each spell is adding more damage. Evocation Wizard for example is adding ~4-5 damage on spells at level 10 when it picks up its ability. The Sorcerer would be adding 5 damage to each spell and that damage scales to 10 at level 20 so it's stronger than the Evo Wizard's Empowered Evocation. 5 damage may not seem like much, but it definitely adds up, especially on AoE spells.

The alternative suggested is really headed off in the wrong direction. It does not replace the need for mage armor as it is only temporary and it hurts the sorcerer every round... that's crazy. The magical energies are not only in the Sorcerer sometimes, but always.

I'm open to suggestions here, but I'm not seeing the issues with the Sorcerer's identity.

Occultist

Eldritch Secrets is the definition of an Occultist. The Occultist is all about the thirst for knowledge and this class feature delivers that. It allows an Occultist to go beyond the normal theme limits. They can then pick up a small here or a defensive spell there. It allows them to cherry pick the best spells from each theme - it's incredibly powerful imo.

Grimoire is very similar to the Book of Ancient Secrets Invocation which many identify as one of the RAW Warlock's main defining features. There are hundreds of stories of spellcasters with Grimoires so this really plays in to that theme. From a mechanical perspective this gives 2 spells as rituals (effectively 2 extra spells known) and allows the Occultist to pick up a myriad of other rituals without them taking up spells known. It's similar in power to the Mage's Spellbook.

I think the Occultist could use a small power boost to its features, but it'd be a pretty small one. From a flavor perspective I think the features are pretty spot on.

=============

I just noticed Wild Shape is back to all naturalists, and that they gain their Circle feature at first level. Ok, my druid player will have to change a lot of things.

I did that a while back. I'd love to have a Naturalist that doesn't need Wild Shape, but it's a great class defining feature. The other option was Natural Explorer, but this feels mostly right.

=============

Has anyone tried out the Sorcerer Shapeshifter. I still can't wrap my head around Origin Form.

Origin forms all have the same benefits:

Add the shapechanger subtype to your creature type.
Your AC equals 15 + your Constitution modifier (max 3).
You gain proficiency in one of the following skills: Acrobatics, Athletics, Brawn, Perception, or Stealth.
You gain darkvision out to a range of 30 feet. If you already have darkvision, its range increases by 30 feet.
You grow claws, fangs, spines, horns, or a different natural weapon of your choice. Your form’s natural weapons deal 1d6 bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage, as appropriate to the natural weapon you chose. This die changes as you gain sorcerer levels: d8 when you reach 2nd level and d10 when you reach 5th level.
You are proficient in your form’s natural weapons and can use Dexterity instead of Strength for their attack and damage rolls.
When you take the Attack action and attack with your form’s natural weapons on your turn, you can make another attack with your form’s natural weapons.
You choose whether your equipment falls to the ground in your space, merges into your new form, or is worn by it. Worn equipment functions as normal, but the DM decides whether it is practical for the new form to wear a piece of equipment, based on the creature’s shape. Your equipment doesn’t change shape to match the new form, and any equipment that the new form can’t wear must either fall to the ground or merge with it. Equipment that merges with the form has no effect until you leave the form.

The only difference for each subclass is appearance.

You could have a list of abilities, and each form tells you which you can choose. Things like AC 15+Con for physically tougher types, speed boost, resistance, water breathing.

The result of making each subclass have very different origin forms would result in the Sorcerer being restricted in their roleplay based on the mechanical benefit they'd want from origin form. I think sometimes we forget that options can actually reduce player choice.

[Marcloure]

Sorcerer
The alternative suggested is really headed off in the wrong direction. It does not replace the need for mage armor as it is only temporary and it hurts the sorcerer every round... that's crazy. The magical energies are not only in the Sorcerer sometimes, but always.

Yes, I agree my suggestion was silly. A feature that is bad for the own user is... complicated. It was just something I wrote out of my head and that I thought had more appeal.

I'm not seeing how Resilient Husk and Power Surge are not defining enough.

I'm open to suggestions here, but I'm not seeing the issues with the Sorcerer's identity.

Well, the features do define the Sorcerer was more combat oriented, striker caster. But, again, although the idea is there, I don't think it have enough appeal. Comparing Resilient Husk and Power Surge to other features like Channel Divinity, Wild Shape and Bardic Performance, the Sorcerer is kind of bland. Again, my Sorcerer player didn't want to be one because he thought dealing some extra numbers is cool.

I think the Sorcerer needs more appeal, not power. Does that mean the Sorcerer needs more flashy abilities or whatever? No. But the class could use something more robust to really enforce its identity. Maybe something long rest based. Or maybe, what I think the problem really is, is that neither Resilient Husk nor Power Surge give something new, they just improve a bit on basic stuff (AC and damage). Looking at lower levels, I don't think having free mage armor and dealing some extra damage here and there is reason enough to make someone want to be a Sorcerer.

Occultist

I think the Occultist could use a small power boost to its features, but it'd be a pretty small one. From a flavor perspective I think the features are pretty spot on.

Reading the Occultist again, and looking at what the Mage does as a book caster, the Occultist is ok, I guess. It gains some extra spells and rituals, that is pretty clear and is good. Something very like Grimoire can be obtained by anyone through Ritual Caster, but I that is fine.

[Kryx]

Or maybe, what I think the problem really is, is that neither Resilient Husk nor Power Surge give something new, they just improve a bit on basic stuff (AC and damage). Looking at lower levels, I don't think having free mage armor and dealing some extra damage here and there is reason enough to make someone want to be a Sorcerer.

I think we've identified the cause of the perception. These features aren't revolutionary, they are (solid) passive bonuses.

Oh, wait, I've just noticed that I limit Power Surge to 1/short rest. That's a horrible feature. Would your opinion change if it was on every spell like the RAW Draconic Sorc and Evocation Wizard's features are?

Reading the Occultist again, and looking at what the Mage does as a book caster, the Occultist is ok, I guess. It gains some extra spells and rituals, that is pretty clear and is good. Something very like Grimoire can be obtained by anyone through Ritual Caster, but I that is fine.

The difference between Gimoire and Ritual caster is that Ritual Caster still takes spells known slots. Grimoire doesn't.

I've added 2 cantrips to Grimoire which I think boosts the Occultist a bit more, especially early while the other features are maybe better as the Occultist levels. RAW Pact of the Tome adds 3 cantrips to the Warlock's 2-4 cantrips.

[Steampunkette]

If it takes three to six levels for there to be a significant difference between the 2 character classes, and between 4 and 6 of the differences are tied not to the class tree itself but instead to the subclasses, then the classes are painfully similar to the point where you could simply make it into a subclass solution.

A fighter a Ranger a rogue and Monk and a barbarian are all very different characters at level 1. The way they accomplish their attacks and increase their damage or defensive abilities is unique. At level 1 There is almost no difference between the Caster classes. And even by level four the primary difference is a single trait gained at level two.

The ability for warlocks to know a new spell as compared to the Wizards ability to trade out spells.

As to the Pathfinder thing, they handle it by allowing warlocks to cast from the occult spell list, unless they are a celestial warlock in which case they can cast from The Divine spell list. If you were to make a water Warlock you would just add new water spells for them to cast to the account list most likely.

Honestly I'm surprised that you don't know it as a system since the beta test is open and you are already using their terminology four ancestries as opposed to races.

And again I can understand the impulse to make things more balanced and more similar. But I honestly and deeply feel that you should create some kind of real distinctions between warlocks Wizards sorcerers and psions starting at level 1. Whether it is in how they cast spells, some sort of defensive ability, or some form of offense ability.

As it stands the only serious distinction to make them different in the eyes of a player trying to play them is what subclasses they get to choose from. The other classes get that, too, but also core distinction in their mechanics.

If you rely on subclasses to create uniqueness, why bother with the classes, other than to say you have them?

Edited: I am at work right now so I am dictating this post to my cell phone and do not have time to go back and re edit every autocorrect or misinterpreted word. so I apologize for these somewhat random capitalization as well as the homonyms that may appear in this post, and finally for the grammatical or syntax errors that may crop up due to a lack of punctuation or inappropriate understanding of my terminology by Google.

[Kryx]

D&D 5e levels 1 and 2 have often been described as training levels. There are thousands of posts talking about starting at level 3 as a result of how D&D 5e is set up. In that regard my system is no different from RAW. It attempts to ramp up the features over the first 3 levels and then more beyond that to ease the knowledge required for new players to pick up the game.

Spellcasters inherently will be similar at early levels as spellcasting itself is such a huge feature that not much can be added on without overwelming the player. This is true in RAW and true in my rules.

The game isn't designed to have major features on spellcaster at level 1, nor should it be expected. My system has spellcasting and subclasses at level 1 and class features at level 2. RAW has a mix of different classes having either a feature or subclass at level 1, but the differentiation should be comparable.

As to the Pathfinder thing, they handle it by allowing warlocks to cast from the occult spell list, unless they are a celestial warlock in which case they can cast from The Divine spell list. If you were to make a water Warlock you would just add new water spells for them to cast to the account list most likely.

I know how PF2 handles it and that solution does not accomplish the goals of my system. A Celestial Warlock is still a Warlock and shouldn't lose the Occult list. "Just add water spells" means that there aren't actually 4 spell lists, but tens to hundreds based on the number of classes and subclasses. This is the solution that 5e used and it is woefully insufficient in that it does not even come close to adding enough thematic spells and is incompatable with new spells published for the system.

I honestly and deeply feel that you should create some kind of real distinctions between warlocks Wizards sorcerers and psions starting at level 1. Whether it is in how they cast spells, some sort of defensive ability, or some form of offense ability.

(level 1-2 addressed above) If you think there is not enough distinction at level 3 then lets discuss that. Please provide specific examples as Marcloure has above.

If you rely on subclasses to create uniqueness, why bother with the classes, other than to say you have them?

Subclasses aren't the crutch of uniqueness. Classes should be unique, I agree. Help me fix them if you think there isn't enough uniqueness at level 3, though please skip the Psionicist for now as I'm unsure what to do with that class.

[Steampunkette]

D&D 5e levels 1 and 2 have often been described as training levels. There are thousands of posts talking about starting at level 3 as a result of how D&D 5e is set up. In that regard my system is no different from RAW. It attempts to ramp up the features over the first 3 levels and then more beyond that to ease the knowledge required for new players to pick up the game.

Spellcasters inherently will be similar at early levels as spellcasting itself is such a huge feature that not much can be added on without overwelming the player. This is true in RAW and true in my rules.

The game isn't designed to have major features on spellcaster at level 1, nor should it be expected. My system has spellcasting and subclasses at level 1 and class features at level 2. RAW has a mix of different classes having either a feature or subclass at level 1, but the differentiation should be comparable.


I know how PF2 handles it and that solution does not accomplish the goals of my system. A Celestial Warlock is still a Warlock and shouldn't lose the Occult list. "Just add water spells" means that there aren't actually 4 spell lists, but tens to hundreds based on the number of classes and subclasses. This is the solution that 5e used and it is woefully insufficient in that it does not even come close to adding enough thematic spells and is incompatable with new spells published for the system.


(level 1-2 addressed above) If you think there is not enough distinction at level 3 then lets discuss that. Please provide specific examples as Marcloure has above.


Subclasses aren't the crutch of uniqueness. Classes should be unique, I agree. Help me fix them if you think there isn't enough uniqueness at level 3, though please skip the Psionicist for now as I'm unsure what to do with that class.

How about making warlock Eldritch blast as part of a progression rather than it being a cantrip? Sort of like how 3rd Edition did it. How about giving Wizards the functionality of their spell book at level 1 instead of giving them a Spellbook at level 1 and not having it do anything for them until Level 2? Those two changes would at least create some kind of Distinction between the two classes at level 1.

And while I understand the argument that level one is a training level it is ultimately irrelevant since you are going to have players who play your game and enjoy it at level 1. If you are developing this version of the system exclusively for use by people who don't play at level 1 then there's no reason to make a level one. Just start all classes at level 3 complete with all of their class abilities they get before level 3 with all of their hit dice they got at level 3, and pretend like that is level 1 of a 17 level system instead of a 20 Level system.

Otherwise you're focusing a lot of wasted energy on dead levels that don't actually mean anything for your system.

[Marcloure]

I think we've identified the cause of the perception. These features aren't revolutionary, they are (solid) passive bonuses.

Oh, wait, I've just noticed that I limit Power Surge to 1/short rest. That's a horrible feature. Would your opinion change if it was on every spell like the RAW Draconic Sorc and Evocation Wizard's features are?

Looking at RAW 5e and your houserules, at 2nd level every class gain something that (almost) changes how it plays at the game. Rogues gain Cunning Action which allow them to do stuff as bonus action, Fighters gain Action Surge which allow them to have two actions in the same turn, Paladins gain Divine Smite, Sorcerers gain Metamagic, so on. A class that gains 1d6 extra damage at 2nd level is powerful, it means it will hit harder, but doesn't feel good.

So, Power Surge adding damage to all spells is indeed a step forward and would make the Sorcerer clearly the striker caster. It would also make the sorcerer the easy caster, they gain passive AC and damage, and are ready to go. That is good, yes, but still not "revolutionary". Still than the current version at least.

[Ugganaut]

After writing a much larger response, I've realized it boils down to two main issues:
1. The wording. "You take the form of a Phoenix" at level 1. No you don't. You're still medium sized(using Human) instead of Huge, and you're not made of fire. I don't understand how you are taking the form of a phoenix. As best I can see, your skin and hair turn orange, harden to AC 15+Con, and you get a 1d6 claw attack. If you have fiery wings, you can't fly, and the flames can't light anything on fire, and don't create any light - so has no properties of flame. I'm not suggesting you be able to either - that's what the Origin features are for.
Maybe give examples like body parts can change color, or texture etc.
"Draconic Resilience: At 3rd level, as magic flows through your body, it causes physical traits of your dragon patron to emerge."
That is worded in a more broader scope, and works well for level 1 really, with later level's "your <insert origin> continues to emerge".

2. AC 15 + Con (Max 3). I think Dex should be an option as well. AC 15 + Con or Dex (Max 3). Natural weapons have three damage option types to begin with, and you can choose Dex or Str as the attack stat, so you can customize it to some degree to fit your origin. Mechanically it shouldn't make a difference. You'll either be Str/Con or Dex/Con, and both will probably be 16+. The difference is flavour. An Earth Elemental origin might have AC15+Con, hard as a rock. A Quickling might have AC15+Dex, so his skin might not harden, but he can duck and weave so fast it's equally hard to hit him.

The rest of the differences will come when Sorcerer Origin grants it's benefits as they level, and the form can change with it to accommodate the origin features. At level 14, the Draconic bloodline does actually get wings, so taking the form of a medium sized dragon would make sense, as opposed to the Suffused sorcerer just being a humanoid with wings.

[Kryx]

How about making warlock Eldritch blast as part of a progression rather than it being a cantrip? Sort of like how 3rd Edition did it.

I saw a really cool homebrew a while back that customized Eldritch Blast to each subclass. But that made me think: Why even have Eldritch Blast at that point? Why not have each subclass learn a different cantrip? I then considered "why is a nature witch casting a bolt of force damage? That doesn't go with the fluff of the class or any of the subclasses." The answer really is nostalgia. Eldritch Blast does not fit the identity of an Occultist - the mechanics would be a better fit for the Mage.

I actually think I should remove Eldritch Blast as a cantrip and continue on my path of adding more cantrips to themes for variety.

How about giving Wizards the functionality of their spell book at level 1 instead of giving them a Spellbook at level 1 and not having it do anything for them until Level 2?

My Mage and the RAW Wizard gain nearly identical benefits from the spellbook - the only difference is that the RAW Wizard has his spells written down while my Mage has to add them to his book from memory when he gets enough money.

Are you referring to Arcane Recovery? That's swapped to level 2 so that the Arcane Tradition can be level 1. The goal is to have all casters have the same points of progression (spellcasting and subclass first level, defining features second level)

while I understand the argument that level one is a training level it is ultimately irrelevant since you are going to have players who play your game and enjoy it at level 1. If you are developing this version of the system exclusively for use by people who don't play at level 1 then there's no reason to make a level one. Just start all classes at level 3 complete with all of their class abilities they get before level 3 with all of their hit dice they got at level 3, and pretend like that is level 1 of a 17 level system instead of a 20 Level system.

The complaint you raise here is the system that RAW D&D 5e uses. My system makes no major change to the ramp up of features from 5e.

Training levels aren't dead levels - people, especially new players, often need time to learn new classes. If your group is more advanced starting at higher levels like 3rd is a valid choice like thousands of RAW D&D 5e groups choose to do.

=====================

Looking at RAW 5e and your houserules, at 2nd level every class gain something that (almost) changes how it plays at the game. Rogues gain Cunning Action which allow them to do stuff as bonus action, Fighters gain Action Surge which allow them to have two actions in the same turn, Paladins gain Divine Smite, Sorcerers gain Metamagic, so on. A class that gains 1d6 extra damage at 2nd level is powerful, it means it will hit harder, but doesn't feel good.

So, Power Surge adding damage to all spells is indeed a step forward and would make the Sorcerer clearly the striker caster. It would also make the sorcerer the easy caster, they gain passive AC and damage, and are ready to go. That is good, yes, but still not "revolutionary". Still than the current version at least.

Today I've been thinking of expanding Power Surge to include non-damage spells like debuffs which would then require a DC boost or something of the sort.
That got me thinking that those options already existi n Metamagic. While I've been one of the people staunchly saying that Metamagic is not a Sorcerer themed feature I believe it very well could be with a retheme to focus more on exuding magical energies. I'm going to play around with that idea a bit.

=====================

1. The wording. "You take the form of a Phoenix" at level 1. No you don't. You're still medium sized(using Human) instead of Huge, and you're not made of fire.

I think you've read too deeply in to the word "form". See Alter Self: "You assume a different form. When you cast the spell, choose one of the following options, the effects of which last for the duralion of the spell." Alter self is not a full transformation, but aspects.

Origin Form offers significantly more changes than Alter Self, but it's not a full transformation in to a Phoenix, Giant, Dragon, Demon, etc.

Maybe give examples like body parts can change color, or texture etc.

If you'd like to help me by writing up physical changes of each subclass I'd be happy to include them. Though please focus them on the appearance and not on the mechanics of armor increasing, darkvision, etc.

AC 15 + Con (Max 3). I think Dex should be an option as well. AC 15 + Con or Dex (Max 3). Natural weapons have three damage option types to begin with, and you can choose Dex or Str as the attack stat, so you can customize it to some degree to fit your origin. Mechanically it shouldn't make a difference. You'll either be Str/Con or Dex/Con, and both will probably be 16+. The difference is flavour. An Earth Elemental origin might have AC15+Con, hard as a rock. A Quickling might have AC15+Dex, so his skin might not harden, but he can duck and weave so fast it's equally hard to hit him.

I was going to disagree and say that Dex is already covered in Resilient Husk, but you've convinced me. I'll change it.

[Kryx]

If anyone finds bugs please do use the Report an issue link at the bottom of every page. It makes solving them much easier.

[Marcloure]

Question. I see you decreased spell radius to 5 feet per mana, and I can agree with that. But then I got myself wondering, to balance the spells, did you consider that a 5'-radius covers 2x2 or 3x3 squares? Covering a 3x3 square is easier to measure and I think is a better size, but is not exactly correct. Also, I think it's not super common to have two enemies adjacent, so 2x2 might be kind of small.

EDIT: nevermind, I looked on the spreadsheet and it's 2x2.

[Kryx]

Spells are measured from a corner, not the center of a square. So 5 foot radius is from the corner of 4 sqaures, hence 2x2.

I'm not sure what you mean by decreased though - Burst spells do scale at higher mana. Burst spells should probably only be used if they can hit multiple targets. Otherwise single target spells are a better choice - that is how it should be by design.

[Marcloure]

I'm not sure what you mean by decreased though - Burst spells do scale at higher mana. Burst spells should probably only be used if they can hit multiple targets. Otherwise single target spells are a better choice - that is how it should be by design.

I think on the PDF was 10 feet per mana, but 5 feet is indeed better.

[Ugganaut]

I think you've read too deeply in to the word "form". See Alter Self: "You assume a different form. When you cast the spell, choose one of the following options, the effects of which last for the duralion of the spell." Alter self is not a full transformation, but aspects.

I definitely have Form and Aspect have different meanings, and I'd prefer it was clear and accurate. Alter Self happens to grant aspects of other creatures, but this spell does not mention any specific creatures, or assuming their form or aspects of their form. Alter Self is a full transformation, just not into a specific creature, but into a "different form". That different form could be a you with gills, but you aren't assuming the form of a fish. The Polymorph spell changes the target into a "new form", and that form is specifically another creature.
I wasn't going to allow Shapeshifter, because it didn't make any sense(medium sized giants and pixie's for example). It does now though, I'll just change the wording for our games.

If you'd like to help me by writing up physical changes of each subclass I'd be happy to include them. Though please focus them on the appearance and not on the mechanics of armor increasing, darkvision, etc.

I don't think each subclass needs a specific list, but more a general list of what types of changes can occur, or how the benefits may manifest physically. Players can get creative from there. I'll rewrite it to suit our table when I get a chance(not changing the mechanics). Can post here if you like.

[Jihelu]

I've been reading this over...can someone explain to me why a Wizard has a spellbook? I've just found the 'spells known = to level' bit. The bit about swapping out spells looks kinda vague and makes it seem like you can swap spells out of a Theme you know even if it isn't written in your spellbook. If thats the case, is there no point in writing down spells into your spellbook?*

Edit: Also trying to figure out where the rules on augmenting spells are.

*I've kinda figured this out with the 'spells known' thing but I'm still a bit confused. At level 2 a wizard can swap spells out equal to their proficiency, or half on a short rest, with another spell from a theme you know. Does this mean just the theme is what needs to be known or the spell has to be in your spellbook? For example, if I have a spell in the fire theme it looks like I can swap out the spell with any other spell in the fire theme even if it isn't in my spellbook.

If it is simply something you swap out of your spellbook, which I imagine what it is, then it seems kinda weird wizards can do the 'swap a spell out per level' thing, though I suppose if it is 'swap spells out of the theme as much as you want' it would make even less sense. Doesn't that just mean every level a wizard gets another free spell if they have access to gold because they can copy the spell into their spellbook, level up, swap that spell out, then just reread their spellbook and throw it back in their head? If they swap a spell out on level up is it gone from their spellbook?

Edit edit: I think I've actually figured it out completely and have been reading things a bit off, but still a reply clarifying everything would be nice because it might hit something I don't properly understand.

Also: I don't think Wizards should have access to the 'yeet a spell away and swap it out' feature.

[Marcloure]

Questions about the Mage and its spellbook.

• When a Wizard learns a spell, it can write it down in its spellbook. That is, when the Wizard gains a level.
• Arcane Inspiration lets the Wizard swap spells to any other from a theme it knows. The spell doesn't need to be in the Wizard's spellbook.
I don't think replacing or swapping a spell counts as learning a new spell. Either way, it is better to clarify it.

• The Spellbook lets a Wizard cast spells in his spellbook as rituals, I guess? If that is true, I think it should be specified in the Ritual Caster feature.
Well, that is not true, as the Magus doesn't have Ritual Caster.
So the Spellbook is useless, I guess? Unless the Mage takes the Spell Recall perk at 3rd level, which allow the Wizard to instantaneously cast a spell from its spellbook.

=======

Writing it down, I kind of understand @Steampunkette 's point. What is the point of having a spellbook that does nothing at all? Well, if every Mage must have Spell Recall, then it should be in its class progression.

Oh, but no other class gains three benefits at first level. So the spellbook here is just a ribbon for the Wizard I guess? I don't know how I feel about that.

[Jihelu]

If that's the case I feel like that kind of goes against the identify of Wizard a bit. The whole class uniqueness to Wizard is the spellbook and how they can know a HUGE number of spells, but not have them all prepared. Another part of Wizard is the possibility of losing that huge number of spells if they lose access to their spellbook.

Some of the damage seems a bit weird as well. Meteor swarm only does 14d6 total damage but desiccate does 30d6 damage using the same mana, though it is single target.

[Kryx]

Spellbook I'd definitely not just a ribbon. It and the 2nd level feature are essentially pseudo-prepared casting. That is he Mage's niche.

I can write a more complete post later.

[Steampunkette]

The complaint you raise here is the system that RAW D&D 5e uses. My system makes no major change to the ramp up of features from 5e.

Training levels aren't dead levels - people, especially new players, often need time to learn new classes. If your group is more advanced starting at higher levels like 3rd is a valid choice like thousands of RAW D&D 5e groups choose to do.

A "New Player" who is learning the game by playing your homebrew ruleset is going to find that there's no important distinctions between Mage and Occultist when they first start playing. There's not going to be any interesting mechanics that separate them in a meaningful and interesting way. Aside from their Subclasses, a level 1 Mage and Occultist are so similar as to be interchangeable. If you're making the ruleset for -those- players, then you should have some mechanical difference at level 1.

Some interesting hook that really tells the player in hard terms that these two classes are different. That there's a -reason- to take Mage -instead- of Occultist at level 1.

Hell. Looking at the classes, now, the only benefit a Mage gets from multiclassing into Occultist (Or vice-versa) is the Subclass Feature of whatever subclass they choose for their new level. The class, itself, gives them flatly -nothing- of interest. Hell, a level 4 Elven Mage who picks "Fey" Warlock gets a thematic change, a language, and an incredibly niche ability to influence Fey entities.

It's just... it's so very -bland-.

[Jihelu]

Spellbook I'd definitely not just a ribbon. It and the 2nd level feature are essentially pseudo-prepared casting. That is he Mage's niche.

I can write a more complete post later.

I'd appreciate it. The wording right now isn't very clear I don't think. I suggest mentioning the spells you have prepared on the class page as well, it might be but I thought it wasn't.

[Marcloure]

A "New Player" who is learning the game by playing your homebrew ruleset is going to find that there's no important distinctions between Mage and Occultist when they first start playing. There's not going to be any interesting mechanics that separate them in a meaningful and interesting way. Aside from their Subclasses, a level 1 Mage and Occultist are so similar as to be interchangeable. If you're making the ruleset for -those- players, then you should have some mechanical difference at level 1.

Some interesting hook that really tells the player in hard terms that these two classes are different. That there's a -reason- to take Mage -instead- of Occultist at level 1.

Hell. Looking at the classes, now, the only benefit a Mage gets from multiclassing into Occultist (Or vice-versa) is the Subclass Feature of whatever subclass they choose for their new level. The class, itself, gives them flatly -nothing- of interest. Hell, a level 4 Elven Mage who picks "Fey" Warlock gets a thematic change, a language, and an incredibly niche ability to influence Fey entities.

It's just... it's so very -bland-.

My personal opinion:

I don't see problem in having every caster be the same at level 1, it's a design choice. Everyone would start as a "magic-user" and harvest the fruits of their training (both background training and in-game training) at 2nd level. A first level wizard, although studied in the arcane arts, have nothing really special about its magic. The same way, martials could start as "fighting man", who just attacks and uses armor, and at 2nd level really get into the sweetness of their class.

But then, why to chose a class at first level instead of having a basic class? Well, having one class that everyone is at first level or having every class being the same at 1st level ends up equal, no?
Also, the 1st level already represents the origin of someone's power and in which way they have trained to become a "fighting man" or a "magic-user", if it was through faith, study, or something else. A level 1 Warlock has nothing special yet, compared to a wizard, which also has nothing special, aside from proficiency, hit die, and how they got what they got. They are just level 1 and have the only most basic stuff, they cast magic.
___

I don't think that is better or worse than having every class gaining something special at first level. D&D is used to be class rigid, and even a 1st level character usually means that person is way more powerful and trained than most people. At the same time, there are hundreds of systems that starts everyone on common ground, and goes from there. It's a design choice, just that.

[Kryx]

Alter Self is a full transformation, just not into a specific creature, but into a "different form". That different form could be a you with gills, but you aren't assuming the form of a fish. The Polymorph spell changes the target into a "new form", and that form is specifically another creature.

Origin Forum, like Wild Shape, is not just an aspect. Wild Shape still turns you in to a bear or a wolf and Origin Form is changing you to the physical form of your origin's power. The Naturalist does not assume the full statblock of the beast as the Shapechanger does not assume the full statblock of the origin creature. It's not an aspect, but a transformation. The appearance of that transformation is up to the player, but at a minimum I would espect something akin to Udyr from League of Legends up to a full physical appearance transformation.

Note: looking at Wild Shape perhaps I can add more differentiating details to each Origin Form.

=========================

The bit about swapping out spells looks kinda vague and makes it seem like you can swap spells out of a Theme you know even if it isn't written in your spellbook. If thats the case, is there no point in writing down spells into your spellbook?*

I have added some clarifying words:

You can call to mind spells to match your needs. On a short rest you can choose a number of spells you know up to half your proficiency bonus (rounded down) and replace them with another spell in your spellbook from a theme you know, which must cost equal to, or less than, your mana limit.

Also trying to figure out where the rules on augmenting spells are.

I've added more details to https://marklenser.com/5e/rules#spellcasting

I need to organize the rules better, for now they are just a big text blob. Please let me know if anything else is confusing and I'll do my best to clarify the wording.

I don't think Wizards should have access to the 'yeet a spell away and swap it out' feature.

Wizards, by RAW, can swap out spells via Prepared casting. Arcane Inspiration is there to provide that flavor of being able to swap spells to ones in your spellbook. It's a huge benefit that Wizards have had in every modern D&D edition (possibly older ones as well, I forget).

=========================

Some of the damage seems a bit weird as well. Meteor swarm only does 14d6 total damage but desiccate does 30d6 damage using the same mana, though it is single target.

See Spell Themes Balance. Single target spells will do more damage than AoE spells of equivalent mana expenditure.
Meteor Swarm (Meteoric Hail) has 8 2x2 squares, effectively covering 32 squares of the battlefield and chosen by the spellcaster so the areas can be very precise and avoid any ally damage. It does 8d6 per meteor (with no overlap). The 2 AoE version does 14d6. Both versions are expected to hit many creatures and even then the damage is effectively reduced for the calculation to account for avoiding allies, not being able to position a spell perfectly, and small damage on non-main targets likely being less valuable).

=========================

Spellcaster template:
1st level: Spellcasting, Subclass feature
2nd level: Class defining feature(s), Archetype features
3rd level: Subclass feature, Perks

Every spellcaster follows this rule.

RAW spellcasters are very much the same with a few level differences:
Bard: 1: Spellcasting, Class defining feature; 2: Class features; 3: Subclass feature, Class feature
Cleric: 1: Spellcasting, Prepared casting, Subclass feature; 2: Class defining feature, Subclass feature; 3: —
Druid: 1: Spellcasting, Prepared casting; 2: Class defining feature, Subclass feature; 3: —
Sorcerer: 1: Spellcasting, Subclass feature; 2: Class feature; 3: Class defining feature
Warlock: 1: Spellcasting, Subclass feature; 2: Class feature; 3: Class defining feature?
Wizard: 1: Spellcasting, Prepared casting, Class Defining feature; 2: Subclass feature; 3: —

You can see how much of a mess that system is. Cleric, Druid, and Wizard gain far more in the first 2 levels than any other spellcaster. My goal for my system was to have a consistent blueprint so each class gained features at the same progression to avoid this madness.

There are two exceptions to my template:
1. Mage gets a spellbook at first level. If they did not get it at the first level then it would cost them full price to scribe their first level spells in to their spellbook. Additionally this fits the flavor of a Mage who is learning spells by writing them in a book.
2. Acolyte gets "Divine Protection" which is just a variant option for armor, so not really a feature, but a flavor choice.

That's the template. If there is feedback about it please do provide it.

It's just... it's so very -bland-.

We've gone in circles with this conversation. If you're here to insult my work with words like bland then please find another thread. If you're here to contribute then please help me improve my rules instead.

My rules follow 5e's design of a slow ramp up of features from levels 1 to 3. See my template above. The specific levels for each class may be different in my rules vs RAW, but the idea is the exact same. This idea is not unique to my system and is not a change that I have made. This is the default design system of D&D 5e.

Aside from their Subclasses, a level 1 Mage and Occultist are so similar as to be interchangeable.

You can't just push aside the main differentiating feature at level 1 and then claim there is no difference...

A new player has to:

1. Understand the rules
2. Choose an ancestry
3. Choose a class
4. Determine ability scores
5. Choose a background and alignment
6. Choose equipment
7. Choose a subclass (most classes)
8. Choose an archetype (spellcasters)
9. Choose a theme or themes (spellcasters)
10. Choose 1-2 cantrips and 4-5 spells (spellcasters)

I think new players have enough to worry about at 1st level other than "what major feature does my class gain at 1st level?" That is not on their mind at all, they are just trying to stay afloat. My game, like RAW D&D 5e attempts to ease the amount of features in to a class as they level from level 1 to level 3. If you think level 1 is boring then please feel free to make the decision that likely thousands of groups have: start at 3rd level.

the only benefit a Mage gets from multiclassing into Occultist

It's hidden in my bloated rules section, but my games do not allow multiclassing and my rules specify the same. Before any complaints: The archetype, subclass, themes, and perks systems should be sufficiently robust to allow quite complex and detailed characters. If there is something missing then I'll add some options. Also PF2, Starfinder, Gloomhaven, and hundreds of other games follow this same model of not allowing multiclass.

=========================

Note: I made a change the other day so that ancestries give starting hit points like they do in other systems as well. First level specific rules for hit points from classes have been removed. So a Dwarf Wizard would get 10 + d6 + Con at 1st level while a Goblin Fighter would get 6 + d10 + Con at 1st level. The number are based on PF2, though I'm open for feedback.

[Jihelu]

My 'yeet a spell away' feature is in reference to:

"Additionally, when you gain a level in this class, you can choose one of the spells you know and replace it with another spell from a theme you know, which also must cost equal to, or less than, your mana limit."

This seems...odd. If you do this as a sorcerer or something it makes sense. You have fireball. You replace it with lightning bolt. Fireball is gone forever and is now lightning bolt, unless you decide to relearn fireball later on.

As a wizard, you can replace fireball with lightning bolt. You then write lightning bolt down. You still have fireball because it is written down AND lightning bolt. RAW This seems weird. Why not just write down 'You learn a spell every level'. The only time I can see this not happening is if you don't have enough gold or time inbetween a level to write a spell down. Is it intended that if you replace a spell that it disappear from your spellbook? I don't agree with 'wizards have always had the ability to swap spells this way' as, in 5e, they simply don't. It seems this comment might be directed towards Arcane Inspiration, however, and I agree with the ability as a whole as it is cool. I do not agree with their leveled ability to replace a spell as it doesn't make much sense to me. They can prepare spells out from their spellbook and gain spells per level (2) but they have no such feature of replacing spells they know with different ones on level up, as my quote says. Is this the intended outcome or could you explain this more?

Next question
Let's say I'm a level 3 wizard and I know...lets say, lightning bolt..
Lets say lightning bolt IS NOT in my spellbook but during a long rest I swap it out for a spell that is in my spellbook.

Is the spell gone forever? RAW when I swap spells out via Arcane Inspiration it only lets me do it to spells in my spellbook, so it appears that it can't be reprepared. Is there another feature that lets me prepare spells somewhere that I'm not seeing for Wizard? You said prepared casting in your reply but I don't see a feature labeled "Prepared casting"

I feel like not having every spell you learn automatically appear in your spellbook on a level up and having the "Replace a single spell per level" feature complicates things and makes them appear more similar to sorcerers and bards and all those fancy casters, while hurting its identity a bit.


My third question is unrelated to the rules and what not
Did this homebrew, at one point, have a set of rules for Wizard spell schools giving you innate spells? Like, Divination wizards having 'divination' and other cleric only spells on a class spell list? I saw a homebrew that looked similar to this but I can't find it. If this homebrew was, at one point, that homebrew I am thinking of do you have an old changelog post that includes it? I'm trying to find it and I thought it was cool.

[Marcloure]

Ok, now it makes sense. To swap spells with Arcane Inspiration, the new spell must be in the Mage's spellbook.
Well, I agree with @Jihelu that the Magus swapping spells by leveling up have some weird interactions with the Spellbook feature, which Jihelu already pointed out.

Aside from that, Naturalist Circle at first level gives no benefit. Is that intended?

[Kryx]

"Additionally, when you gain a level in this class, you can choose one of the spells you know and replace it with another spell from a theme you know, which also must cost equal to, or less than, your mana limit."

This seems...odd. If you do this as a sorcerer or something it makes sense. You have fireball. You replace it with lightning bolt. Fireball is gone forever and is now lightning bolt, unless you decide to relearn fireball later on.

Ah, I see what you mean - we don't want Mages abusing this to add 20 extra spells to their spellbook via this loophole. I'll add:

If the replaced spell is in your spellbook it disappears.

I don't agree with 'wizards have always had the ability to swap spells this way' as, in 5e, they simply don't It seems this comment might be directed towards Arcane Inspiration, however, and I agree with the ability as a whole as it is cool.

Is there another feature that lets me prepare spells somewhere that I'm not seeing for Wizard? You said prepared casting in your reply but I don't see a feature labeled "Prepared casting"

I'm referring to prepared casting, which Wizards have had since at least 3e. Arcane Inspiration brings the theme of picking the right spell for the situation in to my system.

Next question
Let's say I'm a level 3 wizard and I know...lets say, lightning bolt..
Lets say lightning bolt IS NOT in my spellbook but during a long rest I swap it out for a spell that is in my spellbook.

Is the spell gone forever? RAW when I swap spells out via Arcane Inspiration it only lets me do it to spells in my spellbook

If you replace a spell known and that spell known is not in your spellbook, then yes it is gone. See below - I've changed this. Gotta add those spells to your spellbook. ;)

I feel like not having every spell you learn automatically appear in your spellbook on a level up and having the "Replace a single spell per level" feature complicates things and makes them appear more similar to sorcerers and bards and all those fancy casters, while hurting its identity a bit.

Prepared casting is a huge benefit that is often overlooked because it is not explicit enough in class feature lists. My goal was to align all casting to the same system while maintaining the differences. The difference of prepared casting should still be maintained in Arcane Inspiration.

I agree that the spells gained by the class should actually be free. I'll change it:

You have a spellbook. Each time you gain a mage level you can write the spells you learn from that level into your spellbook without expending any sp.

My third question is unrelated to the rules and what not
Did this homebrew, at one point, have a set of rules for Wizard spell schools giving you innate spells? Like, Divination wizards having 'divination' and other cleric only spells on a class spell list? I saw a homebrew that looked similar to this but I can't find it. If this homebrew was, at one point, that homebrew I am thinking of do you have an old changelog post that includes it? I'm trying to find it and I thought it was cool.

I believe I did give Wizard schools a set of spells like the Warlock has for each subclass. That idea has been fully replaced with Spell Themes and higher amounts of spells known as I believe that option allows for far more character freedom to choose the spells that match their concept instead of a set list that might not.

I no longer provide old versions of my homebrew. I spent a lot of time creating this web version. I wanted more control over publishing my rules and preventing old versions from being shared while also providing a much better user experience than PDFs can offer, especially on mobile.

=====================

Aside from that, Naturalist Circle at first level gives no benefit. Is that intended?

Wow, thats pretty bad. I've created https://bitbucket.org/mlenser/tablet...level-subclass and will look to address it soon.

[Giegue]

@Kryx: After toying around with you system a bit I do have a question: would you be ok with me using it as a basis for a Final Fantasy 5e Conversion? I would not be copying it wholecloth, Mind you: I’d be heavily re-tooling the classes a fair bit, as well as adding some new ones (Summoner, Red Mage, Blue Mage, Geomancer etc..)and making my own spells based on the FF games. However, I’d be using the spell sphere and gish/caster archetype ideas you created, albeit with some adjustments. So if I give you full credit where it is due would you be ok with this?

[Kryx]

You're free to use my ideas and concepts as you please - go for it!

If you have suggestions for adjustments that you think are better than what I have please do suggest them so I can improve as well!


One idea for you: Instead of creating a "Geomancer" class, perhaps create a little guide that says: "If you want to play a Geomancer pick the Sorcerer with the Stone Sorcerery Subclass". It could be an option instead of making such specific classes.

[Jihelu]

That clears up all of my critiques/questions. On one hand I still don't like changing spells once per level but I could easily roleplay that as changing my notation and what not.

[Kryx]

Note: I have a Patreon running for the work I did/do for the Shaped sheet on Roll20. I've historically spent equal or more time on these rules and will likely continue to invest a fair amount of time in these rules for the months to come.
If you enjoy these rules and want to contribute to that effort feel free to support it on my Tabletop Homebrew Patreon. No pressure either way, but I know some people do like to contribute.

Also as I've said several times please do feel free to contribute ideas as well - here or on bitbucket. Things like Backgrounds could use cleaning up as well as some missing or underpowered class features, new spells, new perks, new subclasses, etc.


======================

On one hand I still don't like changing spells once per level but I could easily roleplay that as changing my notation and what not.

It's there by RAW on Spells known classes (Sorcerer, Warlock, Bard) to allow them to make mistakes. RAW Clerics and Druids can just prepare different spells. RAW Wizards are the only ones who don't have the option, though they get 44 spells compared to 15-22 of other spells known classes so it works out for them in the end. In my system Mages don't have the same amount of spells known advantage as they do by RAW (though they can get quite a lot depending on their ability to find/buy spells) so I think it's best to give them the option to switch.

[Giegue]

I was thinking that, but I am using different classes entirely from yours, in a sense. Some classes (mage and sorcerer, for example) are to be removed entirely and replaced, mainly because instead of using a two archetype system like you, I plan on using a three archetype system, with each caster having a d10 "gish" and d8 "normal fullcaster" archetype like yours, but also having a d6 archetype with the mage's book mechanic. So, for example, under this the "White Mage" class breaks down further into the "Jobs" (what archetypes are called) of "Paladin" (d10 Cha-based Gish) "Conjurer" (d8 Wis-based fullcaster, roughly the cleric, yes, this is in reference to the FFXIV conjurer job), and "Devout" (Cha-based d6 book caster). Black Mage (which will break down into the Dark Knight (d10 cha-based gish), Thaumaturge (d8 Int-based Fullcaster) and Magus (d6 Int-based book caster.) and other casters will follow this trend.

Likewise, unlike your system, instead of freely having all spell spheres, the spheres you can select from will be determined by both your class and job, but unlike your system you don't need to select a sphere before you can select non-cantrips from it. Instead, what spheres you have are determined by your class, job, and job specalization in the case of fullcasters, and you can freely select spells from any of them, with some limits from your class and job (such as a job-based cantrip progression, and your class giving you certain spell(s) automatically; I.E. a White Mage getting Cure for free, but having one less spell known they can choose from than a caster in your game normally would). Also, instead of having a bunch of archetypes shared between jobs, each job will have its own specialization (basicly what are traditional 5e archetypes), which will be more tailored to each job.

So going back to white mage as an example, the base white mage class lets you choose from the Healing and Protection magic spheres. A Paladin will also be able to choose from the Light and Divine spheres. A Conjurer, meanwhile, will instead also be able to choose from the Air, Water, Earth and Illusion spheres, while the Devout will instead also be able to choose from the Light, Divine, Charm and Illusion spheres. In the case of the Conjurer and Devout, however, their specialization (also selected at 1st) will net them an additional sphere and possibly swap what spheres they get access to from their Job. As an example, the Shepard specialization of Conjurer will also be able to select from the Animal white magic sphere, while the Cultist specialization of the Devout will also be able to choose from the Necromancy sphere, but get to choose from the Dark sphere instead of the Light sphere like they would normally. (Note that the "spheres" I am making are totally different than yours, and will have their own custom spells based on those you can find in FF games, as well as some totally new ones based on 5e spells that none the less will have FF naming conventions applied for fluff)

This is mainly because unlike D&D, Final Fantasy class archetypes are much more narrow, and certain things (I.E. a White Mage who can't heal) just are antithetical to everything FF is. So this is partly to help enforce the FF flavor, while still allowing a few off the wall things that don't drastically part with FF lore (such as more sinister white mages in the case of the Cultist specialization of the Devout Job, or similar things)

So yeah, this is just some of the changes planned. There are a *lot* more.